It depends how he comes back from injury. If he comes back and doesn't look close to 100% then he's nowhere near a lock at #1.

Also, PGs are rarely clear #1 picks. John Wall was an exception. There's a lot of teams that don't regard PGs as #1 picks.

Perry Jones being looked at a SF needs to work on his range. 13% 3point shooter, does a lot of his scoring at the rim in college. Needs to work on his mid range game and 3pt shooting. With time in the gym that can happen.

Jones is a freak of a athlete though. You can just look at him and scouts will fall in love with him. With the right coaching and hard work Jones potential can be off the charts.

Valanciunas is still growing (though not up). He's added about 30lbs in the last year or so, is in great shape, and is having a nice year in Europe. He seems like a bit of a late bloomer.

The guy really hustles, and is an excellent rebounder. He doesn't have much of an offensive repertoire, but he does shoot 90% from the line, which means he's not a liability, and is good for some garbage points. A high FT% is a good indicator that he'll develop a solid short to mid range jumper in the near future. In Europe, he hasn't really needed it.

While Kanter hasn't been playing Jonas has been establishing himself as the top European prospect.

We need a young, dynamic PG and for that I would say we need to take Irving, at this point though. You never know through the March Madness anything can happen

This is a great point by Gurk. March Madness can sky rocket a prospect up the draft boards.

The best example I've is Mike Conley Jr PG from Ohio State. Going into the tourney his stock wasn't too high as a freshman and everybody had him coming back to Ohio State and himself said he was coming back.

He had a great tourney which lead Ohio State to the NC game(only to lose to UF) and ended up being the #4 pick of the draft to Memphis(Behind Oden,Durant, and Horford I believe).

MM is the big stage and scouts fall in love with big time performances.

Sullinger, he is the best player in the draft. He is exactly what this team needs, He has bulk in the post and will give us a low post threat we need to free up our wings. He also gives us the flexibility to deal Amir (packaged of course)for upgrade at pg or sf.

What is every one basing there view of kyrie Irving on? The guy is in his first at Duke and played under 10 games. Duke didn't even hit the ranked portion of there season before he was out. I am not doubting his talent, but why gamble on a untested pg entering the drafter after his obligated 1st season, which was plagued with injury. I don't think we should blowing our pick on scouting derived form high school mix tapes.

If your coaching staff doesn't know how to bring a certain pick along, or he doesn't get touches, or he doesn't have a well defined role in your system, then it's entirely possible to turn a good pick into a bust.

I don't believe in "BPA" for a second. It's an oversimplified view of the matter.

In the end the pick needs to be made with a vision in mind. The coaching staff needs to look at a guy and say to themselves "he's going to be a great player, because we can see how he's going to develop, and we can see how to get him there".

BPA

If there is a very good PF in the draft but you really need a SF and there is a good SF in the draft but not as hype/talented as the PF who do you take?

The SF cause of position of need or PF cause he is the better project?

Valanciunas is not 90% FT shooter. I believe it's about 80%, still very good for a 18 year old center. And he just mentioned he is still growing (up). He is currently 6'10. He has no offensive set, but he set screens and he is excellent pick and roll player.
Shy kid but great leader on the floor. He proved it in the junior team. He came from nowhere and became the MVP. Lithuania 1992 team never lost a single game and still dominates Europe :
2008, Eurobasket u16. Lithuania rapes everyone, including Czech republic in the final (LTU 75-33 CZH). Valanciunas wins MVP trophy
2010, Eurobasket u18. Same story. Eurobasket final, Lithuania - Russia, LTU wins it 90-61. Valanciunas wins another MVP.

The argument people are making(someone above) is look at those teams. You could argue none of them make the tourney.

Michigan State, Marquette, Kansas State and Butler are all bubble teams.

So some can say Irving has not been tested fully at the college level.

+100
Michigan st is having a terrible year, which was Irving best game with 31pts.
Irving numbers would have begun to drop as teams later in the season adjusted to his presence. We are talking 8 games into his freshmen year, there just isn't enough there. Not to mention Duke PG, I think there avg. career length is 2 years, and he is already injured.

If your coaching staff has already determined that the PF will be a better NBA player in your system than the SF the choice is for the PF.

You make it sound like every player has a number attached to them that says how good they'll be.

All picks have potential, but it takes the right situation to realize that potential.

Where did I do that making them sound like they've a # on them?

You draft on potential. This is why you have scouts and stuff. To watch the players and come up with a chart to list who has the more talent/potential.

Then on that chart you've the team will make the decision. Sometimes they will draft on position. Taking a SF even though scouts see him as less potential because it is a position of need.

BPA is more of a NFL thing than NBA since there are a lot more positions in the NFL than the NBA.

Lets say you have Derrick Rose and you get the #1 pick again. Coming out you have John Wall and Terrence Jones. Just a made up example right here. If a team just drafted base on "BPA" they would take John Wall and either use Wall and Rose together some how or use one as trade bait to help the roster. If a team was drafting base on need they would take Terrence Jones. A good prospect but not as highly as a John Wall but Jones fits a need for that roster more than Wall.

You draft on potential. This is why you have scouts and stuff. To watch the players and come up with a chart to list who has the more talent/potential.

Then on that chart you've the team will make the decision. Sometimes they will draft on position. Taking a SF even though scouts see him as less potential because it is a position of need.

BPA is more of a NFL thing than NBA since there are a lot more positions in the NFL than the NBA.

Lets say you have Derrick Rose and you get the #1 pick again. Coming out you have John Wall and Terrence Jones. Just a made up example right here. If a team just drafted base on "BPA" they would take John Wall and either use Wall and Rose together some how or use one as trade bait to help the roster. If a team was drafting base on need they would take Terrence Jones. A good prospect but not as highly as a John Wall but Jones fits a need for that roster more than Wall.

Thats what i wanted to say with my first post here. Just google translator isn't cool enough yet...
I typed word disgusting in lithuanian, google translation was - woman...

40% of Sullinger's offense comes in post-up situations according to Synergy Sports Technology, and he ranks amongst the most efficient back to the basket players in the NCAA, scoring on over 50% of his field goal attempts when creating his own shot inside and getting fouled on nearly a quarter of his possessions.

He is 19 years old, I can't believe I am the only one pulling for this guy. They specifically bring him up in the Perry Jones Scouting report, saying Perry was unable to stop him. This guy is going number 1.

40% of Sullinger's offense comes in post-up situations according to Synergy Sports Technology, and he ranks amongst the most efficient back to the basket players in the NCAA, scoring on over 50% of his field goal attempts when creating his own shot inside and getting fouled on nearly a quarter of his possessions.

He is 19 years old, I can't believe I am the only one pulling for this guy. They specifically bring him up in the Perry Jones Scouting report, saying Perry was unable to stop him. This guy is going number 1.

I'm a huge Sullinger fan as I am a Buckeye fan also.

Jared Sullinger is great. He according to reports dominated Baylor and Perry Jones in a private scrimmage before they year started. He has dominated every game he has played in. Like I said about him before he has the highest BB IQ coming out of the draft(due to coming from a BB family and playing BB since he was a baby). He can rebound. He is a perfect post player and can score down low. Not only that but he has a jumper also just doesn't use it that much cause he rather post up.

The only thing killing him is height. If he was 6-11 instead of 6-8ish he would be the #1 pick.

Irving goes to Duke and we have a potential lockout next season. I'd put the chances of him declaring at 5 %.

Other than Valanciunas and Kanter, who i haven't seen play (youtube highlights of the latter look great though), this list is decidedly meh. I like Sullinger a lot, but it scares me that we're talking about him as a potential number 1 pick. I also like Jan Vesely, but he isn't a top 5 pick in any other draft either.